Nazarene Space

What are the advantages / disadvantages of each?

I used to be a firm believer in the Enoch (364) day solar calendar, but now I'm not so sure. It really seems like months should be based off of lunar cycles (29.5 days) based on Genesis 1... I'm not saying that I definitively reject the Enoch 364 day calendar, just that I am really starting to question it, and I am open to everyone's thoughts/opinions on the subject.

1) What calendar do you keep?
2) What facts do you base this decision on?

Views: 6733

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree it is not perfect, but look at the weight of the evidence. It's easy to mess up numbers. It's not so easy to botch something that's directly related to something as big as time keeping. I would think that the Septuagint translators knew what they were doing in this regard. You can't say, "I value the Septuagint" one minute, then use the "but it is not perfect" line of reasoning to argue away anything that you personally disagree with.

It says what it says, and it says it for a reason...

Masoretic: "new moon" or "new month". (50% / 50%)
Septuagint: can only mean "new moon". (100%)

Looking specifically at the statistics, there is a 75% chance that it means "new moon" and not "new month". I would be fascinated to see what the Peshitta reads.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
i value the Septuagint, but it is not perfect. we don't have the original Septuagint, but the Septuagint in a slightly corrupted form. Just look at the genealogies of Genesis for starters, and compare them to the genealogies of Genesis in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text.
I couldn't agree more.

Yahweh did not exclusively choose the world's greatest thinkers to follow Him... He called, in many cases, the least educated, the least sophisticated, and the most humble men to carry out His will. The wisdom of the wiseman IS FOOLISHNESS to Him...

It's all about what the common, every day, hard working man can visibly see and do, not what a religious institution proclaims to be true.

Phillip Hawley said:
Shalom Shalom,

If I may make a small contribution, I tend to see it in more practical terms. There are many substantial sources that indicated the day-to-day observances of these matters at the time of the Master's fulfillment of prophecy.

Whether month or moon, it is clear that the month was determined by the observation of the moon as well as the application of a little common sense - like counting the days between sightings. Not being able to observe the moon is not that much of a problem. It doesn't take an astronomer to determine the maximum number of days in a lunar month, whereas it might take an astronomer to determine the correct observance of an equinox.

Concerning the abib, there is a reference in Exodus 9:31 that is helpful. It states that the barley was "in the ear" at the time when Moses announced the plague of hail to Pharoh. Some people try to use this verse to confirm that 'abib' means 'green ears'. But at the very least if confirms the time of year - Spring.

The salient point being that the barley must be harvestable by the Day of Firstfruits during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. If it had not progressed sufficiently by Rosh Chodesh to be usable by Firstfruits, then the Priests would add a month to the year. None of this was predicated upon the Sun or the stars. Adonai specifically said 'abib'. Further, hairs have been split over whether 'abib' referred to the name of a month or the condition of the winter crops; I would say both are correct, considering the denominative nature of Hebrew. This also applies to the month/moon disagreement.

I am absolutely certain that the Appointed Times were correctly observed by Messiah at Pesach, Hag HaMatzah and Yom Ha Bikkurim when He died and was resurrected. Therefore the methods used to calculate the observance of those Feast days are likewise justified, else He would not have fulfilled 'all that was written of Him'.

Since we know that the Priests used the observance of the first sliver to determine Rosh Chodesh and the observance of the 'abib' of the barley to determine the first month of the year at that time, those issues are likewise put to rest - unless you don't trust the scriptures, the historical record and the Messiah. In that case, there is little to discuss.

I hope this helps,
Phillip
There is zero proof that the book of Enoch is not corrupted. The fact that it has been preserved exclusively in one language (not even an ancient one) is alarming.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
All I know is that The Book of Enoch is Scripture, and was not corrupted, and so, this is issue is nonnegotiable. If you want to reject the Calendar, please reject the Book of Enoch so as to be consistent. Just, let us remember the harsh warnings in Scripture for not keeping the Feasts in their correct times. It was prophesied by Enoch, Jubilees, and Daniel that the times would change in the last days, and they have indeed.
I am still waiting for your response to this...

J. Jury said:
I do not understand your assertion. Care to explain?

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
We use the sun primarily, and the moon we use for intercalation.
The bottom line is whether you believe it is Scripture or not, i accept Enoch as Scriture. That is the deciding factor for any of us. If you believe it is Scripture accept it.

Is Aramaic more pure than any other language or is Hebrew the pure language, all others are translations?????

Shalom
I am surprised that no one responded to the point that I made concerning the ancient Jewish calendar. We have some pretty good records as to how the calendar was observed in the time of Messiah. The vast majority of scholars, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or secular, agree as to the methodology.

Since we,
1) have a consensus as to how the calendar was observed by Israel in the days of the Messiah and,
2) have the Messiah fulfilling prophecy concerning His Ministry based on that calender,
it stands to reason that Adonai endorsed the ancient Jewish calendar as it was observed by the priests (not the modern Rabbinate, the Babylonians, Enoch, Bobby Sue or anyone else).

By the numbers then:
1) He became the Pesach, being the "Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world".
2) Just as leaven is symbolic of pride, He fulfilled Unleavened Bread by being "humbled even unto death".
3) He arose on Firstfruits and is called the "firstfruits of the resurrection" and the "firstfruits of those who slept".

I know we don't have to go through Isaiah and all the prophets to make this point. You all seem pretty well versed in scripture. Do you not see how the Anointed of the Most High chose to validate the calendar that was in use when He walked the land of Israel? I don't care what calendar you choose to champion, if it deviates one iota from what He condoned with His sacrifice, there HAS to be an error in our comprehension. I know this because there is no error in His. He plainly stated that He only did what the Father instructed Him to do. See my point? They are after all, His Appointed Times...

In His Love,
Phillip
The rotation of the earth did not change, as the Earth does NOT rotate, nor move at all. The sun moves and all other things move, but the Earth does not.

Wow. Do you *really* believe that??
Wayne

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
The Enoch Calendar. Genesis teaches us to use both the sun and the moon. And rightly so. We use the sun primarily, and the moon we use for intercalation. The Hebrew calendar, instead, using the moon primarily, and the sun is used for intercalation. This is wrong, this is opposite. Enoch, Michael, and Daniel all teach that the times would be changed, and they indeed have. One of the kings in Scripture added an extra month and was condemned for it.

Why do I keep the Enoch Calendar? Because the Hebrew Calendar is not Scriptural at all, and even contradicting Scripture on many points, whereas the Enoch Calendar does not, and even affirms some mysteries in Scripture. For example, it clear's up John's Revelation concerning how many days to a year they are. We learn in Enoch that only 360 of the 364 days are to be counted in the reckoning of hte year, and this explains why Scripture counts a year as 360 days, and not 354, or 364. The Hebrew Calendar starts in the fall. The Enoch Calendar starts in the spring. Torah says it starts in the Spring, so Enoch is right again, whereas Hebrew is wrong. Hebrew is very inconsistent, and has to add intercalations to fix its mistakes concerning festival keeping. The festivals keep falling on the wrong days. But, for the Enoch Calendar, when you start on the fourth day as the Essenes did, the festivals are always on the same day, allowing for consistency and eliminating unnecessary and ridiculous intercalation methods. Enoch is much more sufficient, much more precise, and much easier, and it is the one that is Scriptural and affirms the Torah and all the rest of the Scriptures.

As to what would primitive man use, there never was primitive man. They were always highly advanced and educated. Just look at all the different calendars. Most ancient calendars were Solar (Egypt and Mayan for example), not Lunar, and there's a reason for that: because Enoch is more ancient than all!

Bible codes is a very weak thing. It requires that the hebrew be unchanged perfectly, but this is clearly not the case. Also, the number of characters on a line, and the number of lines on varies drastically.

Seat of moses argument is an argument from silence. How do you know Messiah didn't argue against their calendar? Could it not be that all the early nazarenes were in agreement with the Enoch calendar, and thus did not need to hear about the Calendar dispute at all, because it was UNECESSARY, since everyone already agreed? Why cover ground that is agreed on when there were so many other things that weren't agreed upon?

Jubilees and Enoch are two separate traditions. Enoch being false discredits Jubilees. Jubilees being false does not discredit Enoch any more than Christianity being false discredits Judaism.

Your distrust is unfounded. I don't trust your evaluations of most things, because they are filtered through your perspective that already rejects things before taking it into consideration.

Enoch has very little manuscript evidence? what ar eyou talking about? there are SO MANY copies in Qumran. Aramaic, we have Hebrew, we have Greek, we have the full text in Ethiopian. And, when you compare Ethiopian Enoch to DSS Enoch, you find that they are virtually identical, in the same trustworthiness as the other books of Scripture. The same goes for Jubilees.

The Enoch Calendar never changed. The rotation of the earth did not change, as the Earth does NOT rotate, nor move at all. The sun moves and all other things move, but the Earth does not. The Enoch Calendar never taught against intercalation. That's a HUGE assumption on your part, that has no basis.
Are you just saying that because it sounds good, or are you saying it because you understand what you are saying? In other words, can you explain in real, practical terms what it is that you mean by this?

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
the explanation is you intercalate in sync with the moon for the enoch. the rabbinic calendar you intercalate in sync with the sun.

As James Trimm pointed out, the calendar portion of the Book of Enoch seems to have many discrepencies between the Ethiopian version and those found at Qumran.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
By comparing the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek found at Qumran to the Ethiopian text, we can see that Enoch as a while is completely reliable and trustworthy as any other book of Scripture.
It depends on who you ask. If you ask modern Jews, they will say it's modern Hebrew. If you ask the Catholics, they will say it's Latin.

:-)

sevynn leverette said:
The bottom line is whether you believe it is Scripture or not, i accept Enoch as Scriture. That is the deciding factor for any of us. If you believe it is Scripture accept it.

Is Aramaic more pure than any other language or is Hebrew the pure language, all others are translations?????

Shalom
Good points, Phillip. I had made a similar comment in another thread, in which my point was basically that since Yahshua did not rebuke the calendar being kept at the time, He (by default) either:

A) accepted/agreed with it
B) didn't care

Knowing that appointed times are important, I believe the most accurate is (obviously) A.

Phillip Hawley said:
I am surprised that no one responded to the point that I made concerning the ancient Jewish calendar. We have some pretty good records as to how the calendar was observed in the time of Messiah. The vast majority of scholars, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or secular, agree as to the methodology.
Since we, 1) have a consensus as to how the calendar was observed by Israel in the days of the Messiah and,
2) have the Messiah fulfilling prophecy concerning His Ministry based on that calender,
it stands to reason that Adonai endorsed the ancient Jewish calendar as it was observed by the priests (not the modern Rabbinate, the Babylonians, Enoch, Bobby Sue or anyone else).

By the numbers then:
1) He became the Pesach, being the "Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world".
2) Just as leaven is symbolic of pride, He fulfilled Unleavened Bread by being "humbled even unto death".
3) He arose on Firstfruits and is called the "firstfruits of the resurrection" and the "firstfruits of those who slept".

I know we don't have to go through Isaiah and all the prophets to make this point. You all seem pretty well versed in scripture. Do you not see how the Anointed of the Most High chose to validate the calendar that was in use when He walked the land of Israel? I don't care what calendar you choose to champion, if it deviates one iota from what He condoned with His sacrifice, there HAS to be an error in our comprehension. I know this because there is no error in His. He plainly stated that He only did what the Father instructed Him to do. See my point? They are after all, His Appointed Times...

In His Love,
Phillip
The problem, of course, is that orbital mechanics exists, and satellites stay over specific locations in accordance with the rotation of the earth. It seems silly to have to say this, but your interpretation of the meaning of Joshua 10 is in grave error and clinging to this error only weakens your position on other issues, as in: "Yeah, well, he also believes that the sun rotates around the earth. Literally."

Wayne

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
"yes, I do really believe that. Its called Geocentrism, and Scripture teaches that. Read Joshua Chapter 10, when the Sun stops moving in the same way that the moon stops moving.
Amein.


J. Jury said:
There is zero proof that the book of Enoch is not corrupted. The fact that it has been preserved exclusively in one language (not even an ancient one) is alarming.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
All I know is that The Book of Enoch is Scripture, and was not corrupted, and so, this is issue is nonnegotiable. If you want to reject the Calendar, please reject the Book of Enoch so as to be consistent. Just, let us remember the harsh warnings in Scripture for not keeping the Feasts in their correct times. It was prophesied by Enoch, Jubilees, and Daniel that the times would change in the last days, and they have indeed.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service